Friday, June 12, 2015

Haven't I been saying all along that the Anglican Ordinariate Roman Missal with its appendix that allows for the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the EF's Offertory Prayers, the Last Gospel, adjustments to the Roman Canon to reflect the rubrics of the EF Roman Canon, ad orientem and Holy Communion kneeling would be granted to the general Latin Rite's Ordinary Form Missal? Haven't I been saying this all along????? Yes! I have!Well read up on what Cardinal Sarah has written as reported by Catholic New Service!!! What Catholic News Service quotes below is from a much longer editorial in today'sL'Osservatore on page six. I hope someone translates the entire editorial into English!

Paying tribute to the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the
Sacred Liturgy as a liturgical “Magna Carta,” Cardinal Robert Sarah
called for a more faithful implementation of its text, lamented
misinterpretations of its teaching on “active participation,” and
suggested an appendix to the Roman Missal that might better manifest the
continuity of the extraordinary and ordinary forms of the celebration
of the Mass.

“The liturgy is essentially the action of Christ,” the prefect of the
Congregation for Divine Worship wrote in the June 12 edition of L’Osservatore Romano.
“If this vital principle is not received in faith, it is likely to make
the liturgy a human work, a self-celebration of the community.”
He continued:

To speak of a ‘celebrating community’ is not without ambiguity and requires real caution. The participatio actuosa
[active participation] should not therefore be understood as the need
to do something. On this point the teaching of the Council has often
been distorted. It is instead to let Christ take us and associate us
with his sacrifice.

Citing the teaching of Pope Francis, Cardinal Sarah criticized the
attitude of priests who make themselves the focal point of the liturgy.(Do I hear an Amen! Alleluia even during Lent?)

“It is entirely consistent with the conciliar constitution, it is indeed
opportune that, during the rite of penance, the singing of the Gloria,
the orations, and the Eucharistic prayer, everyone, priest and faithful,
should turn together towards the East, to express their will to
participate in the work of worship and of redemption accomplished by
Christ,” he continued. “This manner of doing things could opportunely be
put into place in cathedrals, where liturgical life must be exemplary.”(In the papacy of Pope Francis, this is bombshell stuff here folks!)

Continuing his discussion of “active participation,” Cardinal Sarah
criticized the “contemporary Western mentality” in which the faithful
are to be “constantly busy” and in which the Mass is to be rendered
“convivial.”

On the contrary, “sacred awe” and “joyful fear require our silence in
the presence of the divine majesty. It is often forgotten that sacred
silence is one of the means set forth by the Council to encourage
participation.”(I ask you, what have I recently written on "filled" silence of the EF????)

Cardinal Sarah recalled the Council’s teaching that the faithful should
“be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary
of the Mass which pertain to them,” and said that the liturgy “must
stop being a place of disobedience to the requirements of the Church.”
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, he emphasized, should not be read with a “hermeneutic of rupture.”(This isn't an April Fools joke on us folks! Remember what Cardinal Sarah was told by Pope Francis!!!!)

“It would be wrong to consider the extraordinary form of the Roman rite
as coming from another theology,” he said. To manifest that the ordinary
form and the extraordinary form are “in continuity and without
opposition,” it would be “desirable” that there be an appendix in an
upcoming edition of the Roman Missal that would permit celebrants in the
ordinary form to use the penitential rite and the offertory of the
extraordinary form.

“If we live in this spirit, then the liturgy will cease to be the place
of rivalry and criticism,” and instead be the place in which we
participate actively in the heavenly liturgy, the cardinal concluded.

MY FINAL COMMENTS:BOMBSHELL! BOMBSHELL! BOMBSHELL! and MOST SACRED HEART OF JESUS, HAVE MERCY ON US! MOST SACRED HEART OF JESUS, HAVE MERCY ON US! MOST SACRED HEART OF JESUS, HAVE MERCY ON US!

It is on page 6 of today's L’OSSERVATORE ROMANO but in Italian. What I have printed is an excerpt from Catholic News Service. I hope someone will translate the entire editorial into English. It is bombshell stuff given the direction so many fear the church is heading today. I will link it to the main post.

The 1960's argument by liturgical Hippies for versus populum was convincing at first, arguing as it did that ad orientem was not practiced in the Apostolic or Patristic eras, and that the Roman basilicas were never oriented. But scholarly research quickly debunked all these arguments in the Seventies, so that Cardinal Ratzinger could easily expose them.

But the days of Cardinal Ratzinger as prefect of the Holy Office came and went, as did his days as pope, and nothing affecting the average Catholic occurred to correct the present disorientation.

What, then, is the likelihood that this African, who "should not tell us too much what we have to do", will get anything meaningful done?

I don't know if bloggers are asleep today, but I am shocked that the only site that has this, apart from mine, is praytell. You would think there would be dancing in the streets.

I really believe that an appendix with the EF Options for the OF Mass along with a revision of the Roman Calendar according to the revised Anglican Ordinariate one is coming our way. Cardinal Sarah is preparing this for us.

The genius in this is that it is optional but thus legitimate. This will aid in bringing the OF Mass more in line with the EF Mass and a later revision of the OF to mimic the EF more closely thus healing the wounds of liturgical sin and division in the Church since Vatican II.

I was just about to comment on this lack of blogging interest! You're apparently not just the first one, but the only one, Father McDonald. This is yet another reason that this should be the blog of choice for serious Catholics who love the Roman liturgical tradition.

Unfortunately you make the mistake of looking to Roman dicasteries to tell you what to do, even if you may be doing it already, and even if you know it is the right thing to do. There are plenty of instructions from Rome regarding the liturgy, from Inaestimabile Donum to Redemptionis Sacramentum (the last issued in 2004 by another African, Cardinal Arinze) but Episcopal Conferences take no notice of them, and priests who follow them can run into trouble from their own bishops.

That is why decent priests like you are between a rock and a hard place. Rome is not going to bail you out.

While I'm curbing my own enthusiasm here, I do wonder if there really is something Cardinal Sarah can do to make this a real possibility for priests. Pope Francis has certainly never in his public life shown the slightest interest in such things as the ad orientem posture, but perhaps he'll listen to this adviser. If Pope Francis goes ad orientem, and only if he does so, then the global reorientation will begin.

Dialogue, Please do not call me a heretic…LOL! I am jolly because I know that I am only an extreme Augustinian…maybe leaning a little bit toward Jansenism, but only a tiny little bit. Calvin dies hard in us old prots.

This is very encouraging to hear but even if this becomes an optional part of the Ordinary Form Missal I fear that most priests will seldom (if ever) use it just as most never or rarely use the venerable Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) for Sunday Mass.

It still escapes me how, despite the fact that this Canon was used exclusively in the Roman Rite for centuries, most priests never use it, even for Sunday Mass. Paul VI may have kept it in the Missal, but, like the Confiteor and the "chant Mass" Latin version of the Gloria still found in most missalettes, it is a never used theoretical option in most modern parishes. Some Novus Ordo "options" need to be mandated for use at Sunday Mass if a living continuity in the Roman Rite is to be preserved (or resurrected). . .

I understand the ho-hum, we're only being fed scraps...it's just talk...reactions to Cardinal Sarah's remarks. We need is action, particularly from His Holiness Pope Francis, to begin to repair the collapsed state of Latin Church liturgy.

But isn't Pope Francis' promotion of Cardinal Sarah a sign of action in regard to His Holiness' desire to promote sound liturgy throughout the Church?

I agree with Father that Cardinal Sarah's declarations indicate that positive action in regard to liturgical reform is on the way from Rome.

I understand the skeptical approach of certain posters here. But I believe that Cardinal Sarah's remarks in question support Father's opinions in regard to liturgical reforms that may be on the way from Rome.

I do hope that such an optional appendix is produced, although I'll believe it when I see it. Professor Kwasniewski's petty and vindictive position that there should be no legislative "reform of the reform" of the OF to allow for its mutual enrichment with the EF never sat well with me.

Vox, no one in high places is even talking about the 1965 missal which was really a concoction of various Bishop's Conferences Sacrosanctum Concilium was released. In the USA the English translation of the 1962 Mass relied heavily upon the Maryknoll pew Missal.

I don't think true EF devotees want the 1962 Missal translated into English or a hybrid of vernacular/Latin as was done with the 1965 Missal.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the Ordinary Form has been in use now for almost 50 years and is a part of our tradition. To eliminate it altogether won't happen since it has been the only Liturgy used in the Church for the most part since 1970 until Pope Benedict release from the shackles of museums the 1962 Missal.

So in effect one more option such as an appendix is quite right for the OF but not for the EF. And no real change to the OF will happen except for the change in Order, offertory prayers from EF and other things I suppose. But the collects, prefaces, additional Masses, additional Eucharistic Prayers, etc will remain. I can live with that.

Vox's sentiment is exactly the sort of thing Cardinal Sarah complains about. Many in the EF crowd advocates the abolition of the reformed missal, while the OF crowd practically prohibits use of the older missal. The two sides won't listen to each other, and so each side is puzzled that the other side even exists. Sarah (and Benedict) want this division to end, allowing for one Roman Rite with two forms of the Mass, the Office and the Sacraments, to live in the hearts of the Latin faithful.

Like you, Cardinal Sarah has a true love for the Roman liturgical tradition, both in all its antiquity and in all its novelty.

Also, it's just bizarre that the usually observant liturgical blogs still haven't mentioned this development with Cardinal Sarah. NLM, Rorate Caeli, FrZ, Chant Cafe, etc.: no mention.

1. You are making a big assumption about me that is totally wrong. Would it amaze you that I attend and sing in both OF and EF every Sunday?

2. Rorate has posted other will too.

My point is that one of the biggest problems with the OF is the number of options. If the move forward with the POTFOTA and the Offertory then that is essentially would is cobbled together with the Roman Canon (Lectionary excluded). That is my point, it is essentially the 65 Missal which is an English translation of the '62 with some rubrical simplifications.

As for me being the kind of person that Cardinal Sarah complains about, I suggest you reconsider your comment.

I think the question that first needs to be asked is "why were all the options put in the Missal of Paul VI in the first place?" The second question is "why was the Missal of Paul VI necessary at all?"

The 1965 Missal met all the desires except for the increased lectionary as set forth in S.C. I remember it, we called it "The New Mass." Nobody in the pew suspected then that another was to come. This is history.

When in liturgical history were these kinds of options as in the OF ever done? What is the advantage? A shorter Mass? How is any Penitential Rite beyond "A" "penitential?" How does any use of Holy Water (Happy Water as Cardinal Stickler referred to it) eliminate the need for the Penitential Rite? As for the EP's, it is even more ridiculous. How do you take a prayer that has its roots in the very early Church and suddenly say "these are better" and to the point where the Roman Canon is rare if ever heard?

If, these are added as an Appendix, good. Then Orthodox priests can leave all the other options and essentially have the Extraordinary Form structure with different Orations and Readings.

Eliminating the options would create a backlash from others, so maybe in the short-term this is the best option.

At some point, it has to be admitted that the Missal of Paul VI was not necessary. The 65 Missal could have been supplemented with new Prefaces and a new Lectionary. Calendars could have been adjusted.

The problem with a number of options is that so many priests only use certain of those options to the practical exclusion of the ones that are more in continuity with the EF Missal.

If you get stuck with a pastor who loves to ad lib and use only Penitential Rite C, the Apostle's Creed and any Eucharistic Prayer but the Roman Canon (but usually Prayer II) for Sunday Mass (when most Catholics in a parish attend), then that pastor is filtering out any lived connection with significant and characteristic parts of the historic Roman Rite which are still contained as options in the OF Mass. Catholics have a right to their liturgical patrimony. The less priests offer Mass with the more "Tridentine" options in the OF (Confiteor and Kyrie, Nicene Creed, Roman Canon, etc.) the more some people will continue to insist on the EF Mass.

Followers

About Me

”The views expressed on this
social network are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of my bishop or the Diocese of Savannah.” Comments that I post do not necessarily reflect my views or the views of the Bishop of the Diocese of Savannah.
I am a priest of the Diocese of Savannah ordained in 1980 at the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist. I am currently the pastor of Saint Anne Church in Richmond Hill, Georgia. I am the former Director of Vocations from 1986 to 1998 and former Director of Liturgy and Diocesan Master of Ceremonies from 1985 to 1991.